This is exactly right. Claims that the superdelegates “rigged” the 2016 primary because they would inevitably have fallen before the power of the Clinton Machine are belied by the 2008 primary where that absolutely didn’t happen.
Hillary was the favorite in 2008. Many superdelegates pledged their votes for her. Then a young upstart named Barack Obama starting winning primaries, and by the end, he had more pledged delegates than Hillary. Did the superdelegates remain loyal to their ostensible queen? Absolutely not: they switched their support to the person who had won more pledged delegates — which is the point of superdelegates.
The vast majority of “Super Delegates” are DNC members, who are elected by their state parties, and are active Democrats as opposed to “big time donors.” None are DNC workers. My transgendered friend was a DNC member, and a super delegate.
Super delegates have never, not once, ever changed the result of a Democratic presidential primary. The fact that they might is a boogeyman, as Sanders is talking about what IS wrong with the party, not how to protect it from future bad stuff. They are largely ceremonial DNC members elected by their state parties, along with elected officials like Congress members and ex-Presidents. Focusing on them is either misguided or a straw man. They’re just not that big a deal. Additionally, they do open up more slots for everyday Democrats to become delegates. If House members and Senators and DNC members had to run on the ballot to be delegates to the Convention they would crowd out regular folk who want on the local ballot.
I’m with Bernie on how stupid New York’s voter registration deadline is, but the Democratic National Committee – the thing Bernie is trying to reform – has as part of its platform easing ballot access. Again, he’s railing against something that is not actually a DNC problem. It’s a state issue, and Republicans have a say in that.
Bernie also wants to open Democratic primaries to unaffiliated voters, which is just wrongheaded. Why should Communists, Nazis, Republicans, libertarians, commutarians, Greens, anarchists, natural law or other people have a say in who the Democratic Party selects? The nominee represents the Democratic Party, which means it should be selected by people who like the Democratic Party enough to actually be a member. As opposed to those who think the Democratic Party is so icky they wouldn’t deign to have a D after their name.
The DNC’s money is negligible considered to the incredible amounts raised by the candidates, and the even larger amounts spend by IEs and Super PACs, etc. Before Citizen’s United the DNC had a power position with money, but now it’s a paper tiger.
If Bernie really wants to have a say in the Democratic Party, put a (D) after your name. Otherwise butt out. If we’re too icky for you to associate with unless it benefits you (like getting committee assignments, ballot access for the nomination fight, etc.), then you are too icky for us to have to listen to.
This is a load of nonsense. Pledged delegates are Democrats in good standing and have every right to make an endorsement. Their votes are not counted until the Convention, and are simply endorsements. My vote is always going to my candidate, whether they are winning or not.
But the real problem with this graph is that it is saying, “Voters who care enough to be involved in a presidential primaryh are too stupid to know that super delegates don’t count until the convention, and will be manipulated by this graph” while Sanders is saying, “We need to trust the voters and make it easier for them to participate so that even people who aren’t really involved can cast their ballot.”
As a fixed number, Sanders received more positive stories than Clinton. That means that despite her getting far more stories a large number of them were negative. This is according to a Harvard study.
The fact is Sanders had plenty of coverage, and Clinton only received far more because the right wing outlets focused on the negative lies about her.
Getting rid of the electoral college will help, but it doesn’t fix the near inevitability of having two major parties that fight it out. There’s no mechanism in US politics currently to give smaller parties any say. And in the event that one candidate gets less than 50% of the vote, the president is chosen by the House of representatives. So the choices at the moment are either to throw in with one of the two major parties, or to consign yourself to irrelevance.
I agree with eliminating the Electoral College - any theory that it might serve a useful function by preventing a popular loon from being elected has been thoroughly and recently debunked. But I’d like to see more comprehensive reforms to get away from the two party stranglehold
Sanders has quite some gall, talking about “curbing superdelegates” when his campaign’s position on them changed depending on whether or not he needed them to have a chance of winning.
Isn’t your issue really more with how those superdelegates are framed and presented than how they actually function? Those superdelegates are not really “won” at that point at all, as 2008 demonstrated pretty well.
The chart is fundamentally dishonest, because “Superdelegates” are not counted until the convention, after everyone has voted.
And your continued use of it suggests you think the voters are idiots who can’t see through this transparently manipulative chart. Do you trust them as Bernie does and want to get them more involved, or do you distrust them and think they are easily led astray by carnival barkers with pretty charts?
Exactly this. In every one of the many states where I’ve lived, the main route to becoming a superdelegate was hard work for the local and state party. Often superdelegates are members of state/local government unions (especially teachers) because they understand the impact of local politics on their jobs so get strongly involved in local politics.
Opening up the primaries is a double-edged sword. In many states the active base is on the left of the broader Democratic electorate. I certainly think it should be easier to register, and NYC’s 6 month rule is way too excessive, but the party should focus their effort on getting people registered earlier.
Caucuses don’t limit the franchise, except in the sense that you actually have to take the time to go and participate, and care enough about your candidate that you have to be ready to defend him or her in a discussion with your neighbor. I’ve voted for president in 3 primary states and 3 caucus states (including Iowa), and wish all the states would move to caucuses.
A good candidate should believe, speak, and act in accordance with the former, since the goal should be to serve and educate rather than to condescend. That’s also how you lead and inspire, instead of alienating people. But the latter is more likely. Humans are (usually) really easy to fool with graphics, or with statistics. Most people, even with above average intelligence, are pretty much innumerate and also don’t actually pause to think about what they’re being told too deeply. Faith and/or trust aren’t relevant. It’s been studied and measured, a lot.
That’s a dangerous play. Because, yes, that would help tremendously, the places this is most likely to be enacted are places where it is easy for the Democratic party to achieve complete legislative control, which, in turn, are places which tend to remain stubbornly blue on electoral maps.
The end result would be red states going all-in for the GOP candidate and blue states being proportional. I don’t think seven more years of Trump is something people like contemplating except perhaps in the same sense one would a Hieronymus Bosch painting.
